how does one fillibuster a budget that has not been brought to the floor? further - the premise here is that with Johnson in office, nothing will get done - even if one argues that because mean stupid Republicans are using fillibusters to keep things from getting done, that does not, in point of fact, illustrate that things are getting done now that would not get done with Johnson in the White House, now does it?
Because, as you noted, no other member of his party serves at the national level so, if he were to be elected, he would effectively BE the party in one man. Can't say that about the Dems or Republicans. for instance, Linda Lingle is a popular Republican in Hawaii, strange as that is, and her opponent argues that even if you love Linda Lingle, you dare not send yet another Republican to the Senate. those sorts of arguments about (hell, how many of Romney's voters will voe for him ONLY Because he's the Republican in the race, no matter what they think of him (and Obama's too, for that matter?) Why? Because they want the PARTY the man represents to have more power. I don't think anyone thinks the Libertarian PARTY will have power because Johnson is in office.
Per this source: the middle middle (middle fifth) in 2009 earned between $34,738 and $55,331. Traditionally the middle 3/5 have been described as "lower middle, middle, and upper middle" in political rhetoric and elsewhere. That would range from $18,500 (which is hardly over poverty level depending on the size of the family) to $88,030 the upper 5% begins at $157,176 I think I know what Romney was getting at, assuming he was riffing on the usual Republican argument about small business owners, but I don't see how he can spin that sort of comment into anything that helps him. What he was trying to do, most likely, was distinguish what he probably thinks of as the "working rich" - business owners who create real jobs and actually work in the business they own (and usually founded) and the mega-rich (like him) who basically make money by having money - but that's far too complex a point to make in a campaign speech.
Stolen from Facebook: I don't care what Romney thinks about Middle Income. I'm more interested in what he thinks about Middle Earth. For starters, where does he stand on fracking in the Westfold? Amnesty for the Hobbits in Bree, or should they be sent back to Shire? The voters deserve answers.
It's funny Romney gets such crap for this...Obama defined middle class as "up to $250,000 a year" when he was extending Bush-era tax cuts...how many here taking the piss out of Romney even thought twice about it when Obama said it?
Maybe that's because Obama did no such thing. He did say "it's time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, folks like myself, to expire," but "the wealthiest Americans" is in no way synonymous with "all Americans above the middle class." People making $250,000/yr really are rich, but they are not the wealthiest Americans and they can have real financial concerns even if they manage their money well. It's also the case that retaining tax cuts only for the middle and lower classes is a political non-starter, and retaining tax cuts for the middle class by keeping all cuts up to the $250,000 bracket is a political compromise.
of course...but they also have to make it to a presidents signiture to constitute having "gotten done"
Thus emphasizing my point that saying "nothing will get done if..." falsely implies things are getting done now.
It might be a little difficult to argue "nothing's gotten done in the past four years" (we'll ignore those things that have gotten done, for the moment) and "everything that's wrong is Obama's fault." If anything, the first part suggests everything that's wrong is a carry-over from previous administrations.
Personally, I don't contend - nor do the vast majority of Johnson supporters I have interacted with - that everything is Obama's fault.
I don't see the relevance. Things don't get done now because both parties are more interested in what's good for the party's political strategery than they are what constitutes good and necessary governance. By definition it is impossible for ANY Democrat to call bullshit on Republican shenanigans because it will always be perceived as a partisan act. By definition it is impossible for ANY Republican to call bullshit on Democrat shenanigans because it will always be perceived as a partisan act. And 95% of the time, in both cases, it will be. But on the rare occasion when it's not, it won't do any good because it still appears to be, and the party who's shenanigans got called can claim it is regardless. The ONE way out of that is to have a voice in power who is neither and can call bullshit wherever he sees it without it being seen as a partisan act.
Check the Congressional record. Would you say "nothing got done" or "some things got done and some didn't"?
There was a comedian, a few years back; did a bit about how Obama is like a retarded kid with overprotective parents. He can shit on the floor in the living room but his backers get all upset if you point it out. I wish I could find that clip on YouTube, because it is even funnier, now that he's had almost four years to screw things up.
Storm is going to vote for the Mormon! Storm is going to vote for the Mormon! Storm is going to vote-- BLAMMMM!!! Posthumous note to self: Do not make fun of Storm...